Bill Overview
Title: Teacher Loan Forgiveness Improvement Act of 2022
Description: 2022 This bill modifies the Teacher Loan Forgiveness program by increasing the amount of loan forgiveness available for certain qualified teachers who have federal student loans. The program provides loan forgiveness for teachers who are highly qualified, teach full-time in a low-income school or educational service agency, and complete five years of consecutive service. Specifically, the bill increases from $5,000 to $15,000 the amount of available loan forgiveness for an elementary or secondary school teacher in any subject. It also increases from $17,500 to $30,000 the amount of available loan forgiveness for a secondary school math or science teacher and for a special education teacher.
Sponsors: Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]
Target Audience
Population: Teachers with federal student loans meeting specific criteria
Estimated Size: 250000
- Global: The global teaching workforce comprises millions of individuals. However, not all of them are eligible for this program due to its requirements.
- The program focuses on teachers with federal student loans, limiting the affected population.
- Teachers must be highly qualified and working in low-income schools or educational service agencies to be eligible.
- The increased forgiveness primarily benefits those in specific roles and subjects, e.g., math/science and special education teachers.
Reasoning
- The population target is roughly 250,000 teachers across the United States. This number includes teachers in Title I schools and those meeting the loan forgiveness eligibility criteria (federal student loans, specific teaching roles, etc.).
- A significant proportion of beneficiaries will likely be secondary math, science, or special education teachers due to the higher forgiveness amounts offered.
- Economic factors such as teacher salary, loan amounts, and school funding may substantially vary across regions, requiring a range of simulated responses given diverse individual circumstances.
- The total budget over 10 years aims to sufficiently cover the increased forgiveness for these teachers, balancing with the potential increase in the number of eligible applicants due to enhanced awareness and benefits.
Simulated Interviews
High School Math Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support this policy because it finally recognizes the financial strain that teachers often face, especially those working in challenging environments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Elementary School Teacher (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's a step in the right direction but worry it might not cover everyone who needs it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Special Education Teacher (Rural, VA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved that this policy considers special education teachers, though I wish it had been implemented earlier in my career.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Middle School Science Teacher (New York, NY)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might encourage me to return to a Title I school, but I'm concerned about the bureaucracy involved.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
High School English Teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the intent, but since I'm not in a Title I school, this policy doesn't benefit me directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Special Education Teacher (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a good policy, but I feel those who have been paying their loans for years should get additional consideration.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Elementary School Teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will help a lot, but I hope the application process is straightforward.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
High School Science Teacher (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a really needed policy; I hope it remains in place long enough for me to benefit as I settle into my new career.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Middle School History Teacher (Seattle, WA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the effort to support teachers financially, but it's unfortunate that it's limited to certain schools.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Middle School Math Teacher (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy offers vital relief and could significantly improve teacher retention rates in hard-to-staff schools.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2250000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 2: $2250000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 3: $2250000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 5: $2250000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 10: $2250000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 100: $2250000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $2500000000)
Key Considerations
- The number of teachers eligible and who apply for forgiveness can significantly alter cost estimates.
- Long-term impact on teacher retention and recruitment, especially in low-income areas.
- Potential need for additional supporting policies to maximize the effectiveness of this forgiveness expansion.